Huang Yu-Shan, Chang Sui-Yuan, Sheng Wang-Huei, Sun Hsin-Yun, Lee Kuan-Yeh, Chuang Yu-Chung, Su Yi-Ching, Liu Wen-Chun, Hung Chien-Ching, Chang Shan-Chwen
Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 29;11(12):e0169228. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169228. eCollection 2016.
Sequential addition of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is often needed for patients coinfected with HIV and hepatitis B virus (HBV) who develop HBV resistance to lamivudine after combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) containing only lamivudine for HBV. We aimed to assess the virological response of HBV to add-on TDF in patients coinfected with lamivudine-resistant HBV.
Between November 2010 and December 2014, 33 HIV/HBV-coinfected patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV and 56 with lamivudine-susceptible HBV were prospectively included. TDF plus lamivudine was used to substitute zidovudine or abacavir plus lamivudine contained in cART in patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV infection, while patients with lamivudine-susceptible HBV infection received TDF plus lamivudine as backbone of cART. Serial determinations of plasma HBV DNA load, HBV serologic markers, and liver and renal functions were performed after initiation of TDF-containing cART.
Of 89 patients included, 38.6% tested positive for HBV envelope antigen (HBeAg) at baseline. The plasma HBV DNA level at enrollment of lamivudine-resistant and lamivudine-susceptible group were 6.1 ± 2.2 log10 and 6.0 ± 2.2 log10 copies/mL, respectively (p = 0.895). The cumulative percentage of HBV viral suppression in lamivudine-resistant and lamivudine-susceptible group was 81.8% and 91.1% at 48 weeks, respectively (p = 0.317), which increased to 86.7% and 96.2% at 96 weeks, respectively (p = 0.185). At 48 weeks, 11 patients testing HBeAg-positive at baseline failed to achieve viral suppression. In multivariate analysis, the only factor associated with failure to achieve viral suppression at 48 weeks was higher HBV DNA load at baseline (odds ratio, per 1-log10 copies/mL increase, 1.861; 95% CI, 1.204-2.878). At 48 weeks, HBeAg seroconversion was observed in 5 patients (1 in the lamivudine-resistant group and 4 in the lamivudine-susceptible group; p = 0.166). During the study period, HBsAg levels decreased over time, regardless of lamivudine resistance. Loss of HBsAg was observed in 3 (3.4%) patients in the lamivudine-susceptible group.
Add-on TDF-containing cART in patients coinfected with lamivudine-resistant HBV achieved a similar rate of HBV viral suppression compared to TDF-containing cART as initial regimen in patients coinfected with lamivudine-susceptible HBV. A higher baseline HBV DNA load and HBeAg positivity were associated with failure to achieve HBV viral suppression.
对于合并感染人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)和乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)且在仅含有拉米夫定的抗逆转录病毒联合治疗(cART)后出现HBV对拉米夫定耐药的患者,通常需要序贯加用富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯(TDF)。我们旨在评估加用TDF对合并感染拉米夫定耐药HBV患者的HBV病毒学应答。
2010年11月至2014年12月,前瞻性纳入33例合并感染HIV/HBV且HBV对拉米夫定耐药的患者以及56例HBV对拉米夫定敏感的患者。对于合并感染HBV对拉米夫定耐药的患者,使用TDF加拉米夫定替代cART中包含的齐多夫定或阿巴卡韦加拉米夫定,而HBV对拉米夫定敏感的患者接受TDF加拉米夫定作为cART的基础用药。在开始含TDF的cART后,连续测定血浆HBV DNA载量、HBV血清学标志物以及肝肾功能。
纳入的89例患者中,38.6%在基线时乙肝e抗原(HBeAg)检测呈阳性。拉米夫定耐药组和拉米夫定敏感组入组时的血浆HBV DNA水平分别为6.1±2.2 log10拷贝/mL和6.0±2.2 log10拷贝/mL(p = 0.895)。拉米夫定耐药组和拉米夫定敏感组在48周时HBV病毒抑制的累积百分比分别为81.8%和91.1%(p = 0.317),在96周时分别增至86.7%和96.2%(p = 0.185)。在48周时,11例基线时HBeAg检测呈阳性的患者未实现病毒抑制。在多因素分析中,可以在48周时未实现病毒抑制的唯一相关因素是基线时较高的HBV DNA载量(比值比,每增加1-log10拷贝/mL,为1.861;95%可信区间,1.204 - 2.878)。在48周时,5例患者出现HBeAg血清学转换(拉米夫定耐药组1例,拉米夫定敏感组4例;p = 0.166)。在研究期间,无论拉米夫定耐药情况如何,HBsAg水平均随时间下降。在拉米夫定敏感组中,3例(3.4%)患者出现HBsAg消失。
对于合并感染拉米夫定耐药HBV的患者,加用含TDF的cART与对于合并感染拉米夫定敏感HBV的患者将含TDF的cART作为初始方案相比,实现HBV病毒抑制的比率相似。较高的基线HBV DNA载量和HBeAg阳性与未实现HBV病毒抑制相关。